* The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com
| My god, this is getting ugly. Please don't take that judgment | personally--I've had plenty of flights of baroque fancy when I've | engaged in a brainstorming process, and I've been helped when someone | reminded me that the goal was to make something that's usable by | normal people, not something that's perfect and insanely complex. | ... | Simple is better. Natural is better. Don't try to reinvent language or | account for every possibility, because you'll fail. | | Instead, look at what already works and identify what the gaps are, | and start from that point.
Sure. I'm sorry if it was a bit over the top. I was just throwing a few ideas into the ring. I did however, state somewhere in the ramble that "category" dealing with type/instance is what most people would use, ie. wikipedia is mostly about proper nouns and instances and that "category" is good for this. Category will be fine in the majority of places. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
I can just see problems when "category" it is used in a way which it loses its meaning. If you guys want to build type hierarchies and subject containment then "category" might be too simple in these cases. I just tried to show this. If it is a hold all for everything then a "lists" page as it currently stands already serves that purpose. You have gained only a little over what the lists pages offer. If you want to provide something which has wider applications then maybe a couple of more relationship types (type/subtype, contains) would be very helpful.
cheers
Murray